DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000650627-0003

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-06-23

R1051/2019-3

Contested design: 000650627-0003

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed; the design holder must bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Desestimar el recurso. 2. Ordenar que el titular del dibujo o modelo sufrague las tasas y las costas sufragadas por la solicitante de la nulidad.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Napkings S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

C/ Virgen De Los Reyes 30, 28027 Madrid, España

Represented by

José Manuel Otero Lastres

Holder · RCD owner

Marcos Guasch Pubillvia PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Dr. Francisco Darder, 1 Casa 3, 08034 Barcelona, España

Prior art cited (2)

Publication

napkin design shown on page 3 of 'The Classics of Magic' by Tom Osborne, Napkin Folding (Volume II)

book published in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania · disclosed 1945-01-01

Patent

Spanish process patent invoked as earlier disclosure for a textile/napkin design

ES 289 897-5 · OEPM patent certification and specification

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6Article 7Article 8(1)Article 70(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant sought invalidation of the table-linen/cleaning-cloth design for lack of novelty and individual character over Tom Osborne's 1945 napkin publication and over Spanish patent ES 289 897-5, and also invoked technical-function objections.
  • The holder argued the Spanish court proceedings barred the claim, the cited napkin book and patent did not produce the same overall impression, and the dotted border of the contested design was decorative rather than purely technical.
  • The Board agreed with the Invalidity Division that the 1945 book disclosed an earlier napkin design and that, despite differences between stitched and printed borders, both designs created the same overall impression on the informed user.
  • The appeal was dismissed; the invalidity finding stands and there was no need to examine the patent-based ground or the technical-function objection.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurH. Salmi
  • MemberC. Negro
  • RegistrarH.Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R1103/2022-32023-02-15Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 52(3)9
R2422/2022-32024-01-30Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1562/2022-32023-05-31Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1289/2021-32022-10-26Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1290/2021-32022-10-26Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R0055/2022-32022-10-07Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R0303/2021-32022-07-12Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7
R1357/2021-32022-06-27Decision confirmedArt 7(1), Art 25(1)(b)7